Renaissance Republicanism

It is no secret that an increasing numbers of Irish Republicans have become disillusioned with the Good Friday Agreement and disconcerted with SF's inability to get the British State to enforce the terms of the agreement upon Unionism. This despite the Provisional Republican Movement having committed itself to honoring its side of the agreement, which has meant it has overseen the decommissioning of most of its armory and stood down all but its most senior Volunteers, both of which went against the wishes of the majority of the organization's volunteers and the historic traditions of Óglaigh na hÉireann

Renaissance Republicanism

Mick Hall • 8 September 2006

It is no secret that an increasing numbers of Irish Republicans have become disillusioned with the Good Friday Agreement and disconcerted with SF's inability to get the British State to enforce the terms of the agreement upon Unionism. This despite the Provisional Republican Movement having committed itself to honoring its side of the agreement, which has meant it has overseen the decommissioning of most of its armory and stood down all but its most senior Volunteers, both of which went against the wishes of the majority of the organization's volunteers and the historic traditions of Óglaigh na hÉireann. Nevertheless, despite the aforementioned lack of forward movement, the PRM leadership having signed up to the GFA hook, line and sinker still rigidly adheres to it as if there is no alternative but to bend the knee to ever more demands from the Unionist politicians.

It is hardly surprising three dozen or so Irish Republicans considered getting together in Toomebridge to have a chat about the future of their country and the role of Irish Republicanism within it. They came from a myriad of Republican organizations and none. Amongst their number were soldiers, politicians, trade unionists, political activists, the unemployed, writers and academics. In the main they came from the working classes and those who toil on the land, but as the aforementioned professions suggest, there is a sprinkling of middle class people amongst their number. They themselves make no mention of armed struggle for this was not the purpose of the meeting, which basically boils down to 'Whither Irish Republicanism,' circa 2006. True, some will be advocates of Abstentionist Armed Struggle, others, whilst recognizing the right of Irishmen and women to take up arms to end the British State's occupation of the north east of Ireland, which is after all maintained by force of British arms, believe that there is not the will within core Republican communities for a return to war, nor would that option in all probability meet with any more success today than it did during the 'Long War'. However, what all of these Republicans have in common is they openly raise the question as to there being a need for an alternative, organized Republican prospective to the Good Friday Agreement.

These Republicans all agree that the PRM, in its head-long rush for political power has made one compromise too many, and in the cold light of day, for all their trashing of Republican values and decommissioning of arms, they have very little to show for it politically. Indeed, in the South they have no more parliamentary seats in Dáil Éireann than the Workers Party, a previous split from Republicanism, achieved in its heyday. In the north, little political progress has been made as the Unionists still refuse to sit with SF in a devolved local government. After each compromise, designed by SF to kick start the negotiations to bring about a devolved government, the Unionists and their British masters raise the bar and demand yet another bout of self flagellation from the Shinners. The latest obstacle the Unionists claim is SF's refusal to help administer the colonial Police Service Northern Ireland. Mr Adams once again claims this is a rubicon he will not cross, yet few believe him as he was part of a leadership that toured the country telling their members 'not an ounce or a single bullet', only for the unfortunate-but-ultra-loyal Seanna Walsh to appear on TV to tell volunteers that they had been made redundant as the business was downsizing. A thesis could be written about how Mr Adams abuses people's loyalty and turns something which is an admirable human characteristic into a weakness, bordering on a betrayal, whilst keeping his own reputation spotless.

So why has the media, NI's politicians and in all probability the security forces, got themselves into such a dizzy spin over this proposed meeting in Toomebridge? More to the point, why did SF get called in to put a stop to it, for that is the only conclusion one can draw from the cancellation of the meeting at such short notice. There is real irony here if the claims being made about the local council being pressurized to cancel the venue are true, for how many times in the past, did the Dublin government pressurize public and private organizations not to rent SF a Hall to hold its annual Ard Fheis in?

I could continue this essay, add this or that as to the reasons why the thought of a Renaissance Republicanism, which is firmy anchored within the real politics of the 21st century would set alarm bells ringing in the Viceroy's Mansion and beyond. But I have no need, for although times change, some things remain eternal, thus I will return again to Pádraig Pearse's words to point out why Irish patriots, whilst Ireland remains unfree, will turn to Republicanism, no matter what any transient Republican leadership may say or do, and thus why the enemies of Irish Unity will become panicked by the thought of such a coming together of Irish Republicans.

"They think that they have pacified Ireland. They think that they have purchased half of us and intimidated the other half. They think that they have foreseen everything, think that they have provided against everything; but, the fools, the fools, the fools! — They have left us our Fenian dead, and while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree shall never be at peace."

RSS and atom feeds allow you to keep track of new comments on particular stories. You can input the URL's from these links into a rss reader and you will be informed whenever somebody posts a new comment. hide help

That must include the British cabinet. Remind me again which, if any, members of that cabinet are democratically accountable to any section of the Irish people? Now you begin to see the undemocratic foundation of the GFA.

So pro choice campaigners and pro divorce people in the 80s were fascist for not accepting the vote of the majority.?
Isn't that what politics is about? Not accepting something and working to change it. Regardless of you being a minority or not.

Given that the vast majority of the Irish people voted for complete independence from foreign colonial occupation and formally declared their independence from the foreign occupier that would make both the British and free state regimes fascist as well , which would in effect make the Treaty MK2 a fascist document .
Britain has no right to make any Irish person submit to any British treaty denying the fundamental right of Irish sovereignty which they have never accepted is a right which belongs to the Irish people . We must then also assume from the above logic that the free state government is consistently fascists having simply ignored the result of the Nice referendum because they didnt like it.
Furthermore to be opposed to a process that not only legitimises the foreign occupation of our country but has been a complete and utter farce and failure for the past 8 years despite numerous attempts to revive it over and over again does not make one a fascist , it makes one a discerning political thinker to some degree at least.
As for the cat calls from the first poster one can assume the description of "small and marginalised groups of republicans" is meant to be an insult of some sort . The mentality that thinks in such a manner is frankly despicable and one of the lowest common denominator . Such fair weather friends of republicanism would be long gone under different circumstances but they are welcome to the hollow pale carcass of a once revolutionary movement . A movement founded by meetings of small marginalised groups of dissidents who were betrayed by opportunists and collaborators . Its quite likely this meeting will be resumed long before Stormont is back up and running , I doubt it will take 8 years . In order to accomplish that Sinn Fein will have to sit in meetings as part of the British policing structure in occupied Ireland and preside over the arrest , jailing and even shooting of Irish republicans . Personally Id rather sit in a meeting with Irish republicans who oppose the occupation of their country than with British policemen , wannabe British policemen , turncoats , touts ,collaborators and traitors to their country who will go down in Irih history as utterly reviled just as people like Redmond and the Sticks were once electorally popular. Even if there was only a few dozen republicans to meet with the company Id be in would be a lot more respectable .

Perhaps you could expend some of the energy you undoubtedly have to something more constructive than berating Sinn Féin? You could even try to re-arrange this meeting perhaps?

There was a meeting a few months ago of dissidents in Dublin, to which a Sinn Féin representative was invited. For whatever reason, nobody from Sinn Féin attended. If the contents of your post are any sort of guide to the reception he or she would have got then it was a wise decision.

When and if the meeting in the North is re-scheduled, will an invitation be issued to Sinn Féin?

There was not "a meeting of dissidents in Dublin" last april, all republicans were invited. The Shinners agreed to provide a speaker who was down on the publicity and leafllets for event but he pulled out at last minute. Even if they ever had a genuine intention of showing, their lack of manners and/or cowardice has now given rise to the mythology that this was a "dissident" meeting.

It is a well known fact that the only veteran Republicans still involved with Sinn Fein are those employed by that organisation or those who are becoming wealthy because of their association with that Movement.

I wonder how many will remain when the Brits withdraw the funding which is keeping the many Offshoots of Sinn Fein going?

Apparently ones answers must be confined within the narrow parameters of whatever this Sinn Fein poster decides should be the answer . While I am aware of Bellaghy Sinn Fein councillor Oliver Hughes recent call for the British forces to arrest and jail local republicans from south Derry this summer, Im unaware of any successful attempt by Sinn Fein to have this meeting cancelled . From what I know the meeting was cancelled due to the media hysteria billing it as some sort of "terror summit" which it most definitely was not . As far as I can see there was no chance of any rational analysis of the current political state of play being responsibly covered amid such a backdrop of media misrepresentation . Which would largely have defeated the purpose of the meeting in the first place . 32CSM did not organise the meeting and therefore are not responsible for re-organising it or inviting people to it, although I havent the slightest doubt it will be re-arranged at the earliest opportunity . As far as I am aware Sinn Fein were invited to it though .
As for expending my energy berating Sinn Fein I spend very litlle time doing this and a lot more time listening to local shinners doing that themselves . The majority of the people attending and organising this meeting would have been sinn fein members and supporters until quite recently . As for your assertion 32csm have no strategy this seems to be a result of someone like you opening your gub to slabber about something you havent the slightest clue about . 32CSM launched their national Democratic strategy document last year and made a formal and detailed submission to the Sinn Fein leadership among others .

As yet they havent responded to a single point put to them either publicly or privately. Perhaps your own energy would be better spent asking them about their failure to respond rather than repeating the same tired old sinn fein mantras about republicans who dont agree with them . Of course thats a sure sign of an uninformed and inarticulate individual incapable of independent thought and rational political analysis . Much easier I suppose to go wih the smart money and repeat soundbites and mantras as if they carry some actual politcal weight.

His exact words were, "I hope these people are brought to justice as soon as possible."
He was referring to those who tried to blow up Crown Forces in Bellaghy, about a month ago, using a small landmine.
Maybe you know what "justice" he was referring to?
Why are you surprised?

Dissident republicans may have planted a nail bomb in a Co Derry village, police have said.

Police said the device, described as viable, could have easily caused death or serious injury.

The bomb, complete with a command wire, was packed with nails.

The centre of the village was closed after police received reports at around lunchtime on Sunday that a suspicious object had been found.

A number of homes in the William Street area were evacuated as British army technical officers were called to the scene.

PSNI district commander for the area, Chief Inspector Paul Douglas, condemned those responsible for the “sectarian attack”.

“In recent months we have been making huge efforts to prevent sectarianism and sectarian attacks in the district and to now find such a lethal and indiscriminate device concealed in a residential area of Bellaghy is not only very sinister but is something that everyone in the village should be concerned about,” he said.

“Those who manufactured the bomb and planned to carry out an attack on the people of Bellaghy deserve to face the full rigours of the law and I would appeal to anyone who has any information about the incident to come forward as assist us with our enquiries.”

Police came under attack from stone-throwing youths as roads which had been closed during the alert were reopened.

Sinn Fein councillor Oliver Hughes said he could not believe that someone would carry out such an act.

“This is to be totally condemned. It’s absolutely disgraceful. Some-thing has got to be done to make sure that those responsible are brought to justice,” he said.

"Sinn Fein councillor Oliver Hughes said he could not believe that someone would carry out such an act.

“This is to be totally condemned. It’s absolutely disgraceful. Some-thing has got to be done to make sure that those responsible are brought to justice,”

Oliver Hughes has clearly called in that statement for the republicans who attempted to attack the occupying forces in Bellaghy to be captured by the enemy . We can only deduce that he would find it not only acceptable for these people , his own neighbours , to be handed over to the British , he believes it must happen as of necessity . He also believes this is justice . The Diplock courts and the criminalisation regime in Maghaberry at the end of that British conveyor belt . I can only surmise from Cllr Hughes comments he would personally provide the information to the British forces if he had it , so strong is his belief Bellaghy republicans must be dealt with by the British authorities .The poster who accused me of spreading black propaganda about a hunger strike martyrs brother apparently hasnt the moral fibre either to withdraw his accusation or to defend Oliver Hughes treachery and collaboration with the enemy, even on an anonymous internet forum .
As of now the Sinn Fein leadership has taken no action against Cllr Hughes for this despicable statement that is pure and simple collaboration with the foreign enemy , an unwanted occupying force . They sacked the Sinn Fein MLA for that area John Kelly 2 years ago after he called for political status to be granted for republican pows in Maghaberry . They sacked Cllr Martin Cunningham after he highlighted the frame up by the British forces of 2 of his constituents , even howling abuse and attempting to brand him an informer in the Chamber of Newry and Mourne district council . They even temporarily sacked their sock puppet Francie Molly after he claimed he wasnt in favour of the British governemnts introduction of enlarged super councils to the north , a mundane issue . Yet they take no action or reprimand against Oliver Hughes for his disgraceful public comments . It can only be assumed he was "on message " as far as his leadership are concerned .
Its because of this open agenda of treachery and collaboration wth the foreign occupier and the imminent joining of its armed occupation forces by Sinn Fein that republicans are having meetings such as the one recently postponed in Toomebridge . And therell be many more such meetings . Sinn Fein can certainly attend but in my opinion they cannot expect to call for collaboration with the British forces against seperatist insurgents and expect to go unchallenged .

Whatever you say about them, what have your miltary campaigns achieved except Omagh? The original Sticks actually killed more soldiers and RUC then your lot. Even if they had only killed Ranger Best they would still have killed more Brits than the CIRA/RIRA combined!

If youve killed a few yourself then your criticisms are valid . If not then your just a slabber with no clue as to what you are talking about , simply parroting the party line. The collaborationist agenda made public in Oliver Hughes calls must be considered alongside the public gratitude expressed by both Mo Mowlam and PD minister Liz O'Donnell from the steps of Stormont in 1998 to the Provisional leadership for their assistance in combatting the "dissidents" . These Sinn Fein calls for republicans to be arrested by the British must also be considered alongside what the Sinn Fein leadership refer to as their "working relationship" with the British military and the regular military briefings given by Gerry Adams and others to British military intelligence chiefs . It is known for definite that in the immediate aftermath of the 1997 split Sinn Fein also supplied the free state authorities with the names of every republican who left to reconstitute the republican movement .It can be assumed as a matter of course that the British were supplied with the same intelligence and that such assistance has continued unabated since then .There is no doubt in my mind that the provisionals , through intelligence gathering , surveillance and infiltration and basic touting ( under the auspices of this working relationship with the British) have up to this point successfuly thwarted the military campaign . In Ballymurphy in Belfast on an occasion that I and many other people witnessed in 1998 the provisionals sealed off the whiterock road and stood directly in front of a landmine they had observed being planted the night before and called the British army in to defuse it . Collaboration such as this, coupled with threats, abductions, smear camapigns in the gutter press and whispering campaigns in the neighbourhood have been used to successfully up to now thwatrt Irish resistance to Britisg occupation . But I believe that those hurdles have been overcome and will be demonstrated to hjave been overcome . Sinn Fein today claim they havent killed any Brits . Oliver Hughes has illustrated that when they do Sinn Fein will complain even louder and help the Brits catch those republicans responsible .
Also for anyone to state categorically that that campaign , although desperately unsuccessful has not inflicted any casualties is also wrong in my opinion . On a number of occasions republicans managed to breach the security of a number of British military bases , even tunnelling into them in Derry . A number of large bombs successfully detonated . On one ocassion the British paratroops guard house was completely demolished in an explosion in Derry . The same night they announced 2 paras had been killed in an accident in Dery while searching the hold of a container ship in Derry docks .

The member of Provisional Sinn Fein who was to speak at the republican meeting in abbey street a few months ago was ordered not to do so by the party. He was then to speak as a trade union activist, but at the last minute pulled out.
Also members of the party were advised not to attend although some did.

It now seems that there is a headlong rush by Sinn Feinners to prove themselves to Unionists. This is the HAND OF FRIENDSHIP which Adams speaks about in the same speech as his reminiscing of The DYING HUNGER STRIKERS.
Remember that during the lives of the Hunger Strikers anyone publicly encouraging the arrest of Republicans was dealt with severely. How it is vital if Sinn Fein are to be seen to be on the side of the Queen's law and order and thus worthy of a place in Paisley's Government.

But Oliver Hughes is simply espousing the GFA .Thats precisely what it entails . Those who negotiated such a treaty which makes it politically necessary for oliver hughes to become a shameful public collaborator with the British are indeed no better than scap or Donaldson either . Possibly even worse in my opinion.

A well-known republican has outlined the reasons behind the cancellation of a political forum, claiming the event was “hijacked” by elements with no connection to the proceedings.

Dominic McGlinchey, a son of the former INLA leader of the same name, says his decision to speak out was prompted after several days of “reckless and dangerous” media speculation on the event in Toome, Co Antrim, which was to include “a broad section of republican opinion”.

Speaking to Daily Ireland yesterday, 29-year-old Mr McGlinchey from Co Derry, said the event was “hijacked by people who had no input whatsoever into organising it”. He also dismissed media reports claiming the well-publicised meeting was organised to debate forming a military strategy.

“A lot of the speculation has been very wreckless and dangerous. This meeting was not arranged to debate forming a military strategy,” he said.

“It was intended to be a meeting of political minds. The meeting was about the coming together of a broad section of republican opinion, to either agree or disagree. It wasn’t meant to be about Provo or Sinn Féin bashing.”

Mr McGlinchey also hit out at the implication that the meeting was to be a platform for dissident opinion.

“It was made clear to everyone who was invited that Sinn Féin are the main players within republicanism and without them being present at the meeting there was no point in it taking place.

“I wasn’t pressurised by the provisional movement into cancelling it. This was intended to be one in a series of meetings arranged to analyse our past. It was about what has taken place over the last 30 years and the last 600 years.

“It was intended to be about what have we learned from Connolly and Costello, who talked about having an umbrella where no one was marginalised.”

Reports in several weekend newspapers speculated that a large number of individuals in south Derry were moving away from mainstream republicanism.

A former member of Sinn Féin, Mr McGlinchey says he is not aware of any split within the ranks of that party in south Derry.

Despite claims to the contrary, Mr McGlinchey insists no political or paramilitary organisation was invited to the cancelled meeting.

“Only individuals were invited to attend this meeting, people were invited as individuals, including members of Sinn Féin. There was to be no top table, just one chairman who would have directed the debate.

“At the minute republicanism is fragmented but we are all after the same goal. We want a united Ireland and we all want a better society than that endured by our fathers and mothers.

“In the end, with the way things went, the meeting would have divided republicans rather than united them and the meeting was cancelled for that very reason.

“To divide republicans would have been to go against the original objectives.”

The individual concerned was told he could speak if he wanted to as a trade union activist or as an individual but he could not speak as a party representative. Sinn Féin was not requested to provide a speaker btw, this individual was approached one to one.

Clarification on whether Sinn Fein members are permitted to address such gatherings in the first place would clear up a lot of confusion and distrust . If we bear in mind the examples of MLA John Kelly and Mourne councillor Martin Cunningham I certainly wouldnt blame any Sinn Fein activist for being afraid to turn up due the possible reaction of their own leadership , which could be described as whimsical to say the least . John Kelly got himself into hot water after expressing support for political status for republican activists imprisoned by the British when a number of RIRA members went on dirty protest in Maghaberry . Yet just recently Jim Gibney wrote an article calling for support for a less drastic form of protest for political status being persued by prisoners aligned to RSF ? So is the problem there the organisation involved , the form of protest involved or the political status issue itself ? Does the fact the prisoner releases under the GFA doing away with political status mean one cannot support political status or what ?This seems to be a minefield for the average shinner .
In the Cunningham case we have a mass of contradictions again . Cllr Martin Cunningham was dismissed from the party after he spoke out against the British frame up of 2 of his constituents whom the British army , PSNI and one of their agents had planted evidence on . Despite dismissing Clr Cunningham for this the local Sinn Fein newsletter and I believe website as well highlighted the fact Sinn Fein had backed these popular local republicans case . Technically Sinn Fein had but they booted out the man for doing it . The Sinn Fein quagmire gets even more murky difficult to understand . Newry and Mourne Sinn Fein councillors waged a dreadful smear campaign against Martin Cunningham after he met with the family of Robert McCartney . They put up posters in the council offices and chamber branding him an informer for meeting them and supporting their call for justice . They even shouted informer at him within the council chamber , elected representatives mind . Yet a week later Gerry Adms said precisely the same thing as Martin Cunningham and they applauded his speech ? Oliver Hughes makes a call to have republicans arrested and face British Diplock justice yet hes not an informer ? He doesnt get into any trouble , so is this party policy now ? Is this on message ?

I,ll pointout again Sinn Feins refusal to adress the detailed submission formally submitted to their leadership last year as part of 32csms strategy of opening up much needed political debate and to seek urgent clarity on a number of important issues . There is nothing remotely threatening in the submission unless one believes clarity in politics is threatening . Perhaps some Sinn Fein member could have a bash at replying despite the continued refusal of their leadership ? This is not an attempt to catch anyone out or be clever . These are the questions that must be put to Sinn Fein at any public debate in order to clarify where republicanism various strands stand at the minute and what level of common ground exists between them .

2005 Submission to Sinn Fein by 32csm

"SINN FEIN
&
IRISH NATIONAL SELF DETERMINATION

A Submission to Sinn Fein (Provisional) by the 32 County Sovereignty Movement

Preface

In this the centenary year of the founding of Sinn Fein the most pertinent question facing Irish republicans today is why Ourselves Alone remains unrealised. In a series of political submissions to the various political groupings the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is attempting to address the failure to achieve this realisation and to realign political thinking along a separatist heading. We do this because we believe Irish unity is our fundamental right and that such unity represents the proper democratic framework in which to resolve divisions amongst our people. These divisions are in fact the principle strategic mechanism by which our unity remains outside of our control.

In devising the various submissions the 32CSM were mindful of two facets concerning the political interests involved;

1. Their stated public position.

2. This position set against their political actions.

In attempting to put forward credible political alternatives the 32CSM felt it necessary that any inconsistencies or contradictions in the above facets had to be resolved, both to bring clarity to the political theatre, and to allow our alternatives be measured against this clarified environment. We are also acutely mindful that the political theatre in which all the interested parties practice is one where conflict pervades. To this end the 32CSM will outline, in clear and concise terms, our political position and correlate that position with our political programme to achieve our ends.

In any conflict resolution process the relationship between clarity of position and purpose of action is essential if the core cause of conflict is to be addressed. The 32 CSM contend that the violation of Irish sovereignty is the core cause of conflict in Ireland and that the legitimacy of our demand for national self determination for the Irish people is what the legitimacy of the republican struggle to achieve this end is predicated upon. For our part the 32CSM lodged formal representations to the United Nations with the dual purpose of legally challenging Britain’s claim to sovereignty over part of Ireland, and upholding the right of the Irish people to sovereignty over our national territory, the island of Ireland. (see document appendix). The challenge is open to any political interest to either refute its contentions or support them. This invitation is extended to Sinn Fein also.

In consequence the 32CSM seeks the engagement of Sinn Fein in the following areas;

1. Democratic Debate within Republicanism.

2. The Cause of Conflict in Ireland.

3. The Good Friday Agreement and Self Determination.

4. Irish Democracy and Irish sovereignty.

Histrionics makes for bad politics, history teaches us this. The engagement by republicans with all political interests to the conflict is essential in bringing about its resolution. Isolation of the separatist position is as detrimental as subordinating it to a ‘Home Rule’ ethos. That being said history cannot be ignored, as one of the more indelible aspects of the Irish conflict is the failure of repeating history. All political movements must be accountable to their interpretation of their history through word and deed. What runs in tandem with one hundred years of Sinn Fein, and others, is one hundred years of occupation and both continue to exist. This fact in itself is an indictment of Irish republicanism to which perfidious albion is not a sole defence.

For our part the prefix ‘provisional’ does not identify a Sinn Fein in any sense that the name Sinn Fein identifies a practitioner of separatist politics. Given the centenary year there will exist a distraction in the body politic of claim and counter claim as to who represents the party’s true heirs. Given the continued violation of our sovereignty, and its electoral ‘endorsement’ in 1998, the separatist analysis will no doubt tell the body politic, in fact, who is not.Democratic Debate and Republicanism

There exists a state of affairs in which longstanding members of Sinn Fein remain suspended from the party for endeavouring to have the issue of Irish sovereignty debated within the broader party structure. These events came to pass in the run up to the ratification of the GFA where said members wished to voice genuine concerns about the fundamental ethos of the peace negotiations, so called, themselves. Having identified in the talks a critical deficiency as regards the issue of Irish sovereignty their attempts to raise these concerns at an Ard Fheis were greeted with prohibition.

The basis of their suspension, as relayed by party officials, was that membership of the 32CSM was/is incompatible with membership of Sinn Fein. Given that the 32CSM is concerned primarily with defending Irish sovereignty it would seem that the issue of sovereignty itself is what is deemed incompatible. Given also that the establishment of a sovereign independent Ireland is the declared aim of Sinn Fein could it now, in that light, address the following observations;

1. What is the basis of incompatibility between membership of Sinn Fein and the 32CSM?

2. Is the issue of Irish sovereignty a prohibitive subject for debate within Sinn Fein?

3. Will Sinn Fein engage, officially, with debate on the issue of Irish sovereignty with the 32CSM?

4. Who constitutes the Republican Family?

No one who holds to a credible political position need fear democratic debate. Democratic debate can only strengthen the political viewpoint of those who engage in it. In a genuine conflict resolution process the 32CSM contends that the stronger the republican viewpoint the more potent its impact at negotiations. We equally contend that not to engage in democratic debate on the republican position is incompatible with seeking a just resolution to the Anglo Irish conflict.

Cause of Conflict in Ireland

The longevity, colonial nature and perfidy of the Anglo Irish conflict has given rise to a strategic masking of its core cause. The intermittent success of this strategy was most pronounced when practiced by domestic Irish politics. The legacy of this success is the perpetuation of the conflict.

The 32CSM hold that Britain’s violation of Irish sovereignty is the core cause of the Anglo Irish conflict and the resultant conflicts between different sections of the Irish people. Sourced from this violation is the denial of our right to self determination, our right to resolve our differences within an Irish democratic framework and our right to establish peaceful relations with our neighbouring island. We equally hold that clear recognition of the core cause of conflict is essential in seeking its resolution. The politics of conflict resolution must be constructed from outside the politics which the conflict has engendered.

Not all Irish politics holds or practices this view. The two basic trends of political thought which evolved around the conflict was a view which seen a British dimension as intrinsic to it and the view which rejects this premise. In their workings there were those who opposed;

1. The manner of British occupation.

and those who opposed,

2. The fact of British occupation.

It was the separatist tradition which arrayed itself against the fact of occupation whereas the Home Rule tradition contented itself with constructing an acceptable manner to it. As a declared separatist party we call upon Sinn Fein to address the following,

1. Is the fact of British occupation, irrespective of manner, a cause of conflict in Ireland?

2. Is the manner of British occupation a strategic device for preserving the occupation?

3. Is the practice of Home Rule politics a practice of British politics in Ireland?

4. Is the practice of Home Rule politics incompatible with the pursuit of the separatist objective?

The 32CSM calls upon Sinn Fein, as a declared separatist party, and others, and for Sinn Fein to call upon others, to formally declare that;

The British violation of Irish sovereignty is the cause of conflict in Ireland

The 32CSM invites Sinn Fein to join us in seeking to have the above declaration form the basis of the Irish political dimension in a peace process between the peoples and political representatives of the two islands.

Good Friday Agreement & Self Determination

Sinn Fein is a negotiator, signatory and continued adherent of the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Fein was instrumental in securing, from a partitioned Irish electorate, the GFA’s popular endorsement. Sinn Fein negotiated and accepted the GFA’s terms from a position of prolonged conflict, engaged in to defend and implement the Irish people’s right to national self determination. Clearly this gives rise to political implications pertaining to the legitimacy and pursuit of the republican struggle. To give clarity to these political implications we call upon Sinn Fein to outline in detail a response to the following enquiry;

To what extent is Sinn Fein bound, legally and politically, to the terms it negotiated and endorsed in the GFA?

From our analysis of the terms of the GFA the 32CSM deduces the following;

1. Our right to national self determination without external impediment is refuted.

2. British occupation can be legitimately permanent.

3. The use of armed force to defend Irish sovereignty is a criminal act

4. Britain is the legitimate sovereign authority in the occupied area.

The basis of the 32CSM’s political strategy to progress the republican struggle is founded on two premises;

1. The legitimacy of the republican struggle.

2. A separatist analysis of prevailing politics.

We now set our analysis against that of Sinn Fein. We address the following political observations to you;

1. How is our right to national self determination defended and promoted by signing a treaty which states that no such right exists?

2. How is our right to national self determination defended and promoted by securing an electoral endorsement thereon from a partitioned Irish electorate?

3. By what authority does Sinn Fein sign a treaty which states that British occupation in Ireland can be legitimately permanent?

4. What was the legitimate pretext for the republican struggle up to the signing of the GFA?

5. Is the use of armed force defending and seeking to restore Irish sovereignty a criminal act?

6. What part of the GFA challenges Britain’s claim to sovereignty over part of Ireland?

7. Which other signatories to the GFA views it as a mechanism for, or a mechanism to, securing the unity of our national territory?

The 32CSM calls upon Sinn Fein to repudiate any stance on the national question which subverts Irish sovereignty. We call upon Sinn Fein to assist the 32CSM in realigning the Irish political position to this basis and to create a peace process wherein this position is resolutely defended.

Irish Democracy & Irish Sovereignty

The central focus of the political programme of the 32CSM to pursue the republican objective is the concept of an Irish Democratic Framework (IDF). Given that democracy is the strongest and most just criteria for securing a settlement to the conflict we submit that Irish democracy, at its maximum expression, offers the only realistic and just opportunity to resolve the conflict and the conflicts engendered thereof. An Irish

Democratic Framework represents;

1. The ultimate expression of Irish sovereignty.

2. Maximum and secured democratic inclusion for all sections of the Irish people.

3. A peaceful alternative.

4. A firm foundation for national and political development.

Alternatives to the status quo require alternative politics predicated on fundamentally alternative concepts. Tinkering with existing and previously failed agendas is merely to invite repeated failure. The IDF offers new and secure ground upon which to construct a political viewpoint which can address the conflict afresh. Most pertinently it challenges each political view point in the conflict as it relates to;

1. Democratic accountability to and from government.

2. Democratic inclusion to and from government.

3. Constitutional and political stability.

4. Sovereign integrity.

5. Justice.

Inherent in the concept of democratic integrity is sovereign integrity and any derogation in either field is a derogation of the other. The 32CSM submit to Sinn Fein that an Irish Democratic Framework is the vehicle upon which the republican struggle can be progressed because the IDF ensures that advocacy of Irish unity would be synonymous with its pursuit. We look forward to your considered response.

ADDENDUM

In tandem with this submission to Sinn Fein the 32CSM has compiled other submissions to the various political interests with analysis and political initiatives we see as pertinent to them. Specifically we sought of the following;

1. British Government: A Declaration of its Long Term Intentions Toward Ireland.

2. The Irish Government: A Declaration of, and Programme for, the Realisation of its Political Preferences.

3. The Broad Unionist Community: To Address the Probability of Irish Unity.

In these submissions we offered our analysis of the prevailing political climate, we outlined our basic position and we proffered political initiatives to advance a settlement. We called upon each to respond formally to our legal submission to the UN concerning Irish sovereignty and we once again invite Sinn Fein to do likewise. Also we urge Sinn Fein to encourage the other political parties to engage positively with these submissions.

This should make the 2011 local council election in Magherafelt interesting. The Irish News reports today that

The brother of IRA hunger striker Francis Hughes has confirmed he will stand against Sinn Féin in next year’s local council elections. Oliver Hughes sits on Magherafelt District Council as an independent republican representative for Moyola district after resigning in 2006 with former Sinn Féin colleague Patsy Groogan over what they described as “internal differences”. Mr Groogan also confirmed he intends to stand as an independent candidate in the local elections.